R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved against the order passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh dated 11.3.2006 allowing application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for recovery for sum of Rs. 4,20,000/ -, which was decreed on 1.10.2003. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for restraining the petitioners from alienating the property specified therein during the pendency of the suit was also filed and the court vide its order dated 20.3.2003 directed the petitioners to maintain status -quo with regard to the suit property. Subsequently, it was learnt that the property in respect of which status -quo order was passed was already hypothecated with Oriental Bank of Commerce. It was accordingly brought to the notice of the court that the property would be sufficient only to exhaust the charge created thereon in favour of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores and the respondent would be totally insecure. Application, thus, was filed for issuing direction to the petitioners to furnish a Bank guarantee for the suit amount. At that time, one of the petitioners, namely, Ritesh Saggar made a statement before the court that the crane specified in order dated 20.3.2003 is free from all encumbrances and charges and on this basis, the order dated 20.3.2003 was modified on 14.6.2003 and the application was accordingly disposed of. It was later learnt that the statement made by Ritesh Saggar, leading to passing of the order dated 14.6.2003, was false. In fact, the crane had also been hypothecated with the Bank vide a deed dated 12.8.2002. Thereafter the respondent had filed application under Order 38 Rule 5 seeking attachment of some unencumbered property. In the reply filed, stand in regard to the crane was again reiterated by stating that the crane is unencumbered. It is, thus, urged that the petitioners have committed an offence of perjury second time and thus a prayer was made for filing of a complaint under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
(3.) MR . R.S.Bajaj, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the decree which was being executed has been satisfied and there is no liability now standing against the petitioners. He accordingly submits that the present application has unnecessarily been filed, which, according to the petitioners is false, frivolous and fictitious. The counsel would also submit that this statement was only made by Ritesh Saggar not with any intention but only on account of lack of proper information with him and as such it would not attract the offence of perjury as is being alleged for which the present application was allowed. In addition, the counsel would also submit that all the petitioners cannot be made liable for perjury as the statement was made only by Ritesh Saggar and they did not make any such statement before the court.;